Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board unanimously denies special‑use permit for proposed Prater Lane junkyard after citizen concerns
Summary
After public comment from neighbors and review of Planning Commission findings, the Smyth County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a special‑use permit for an automobile salvage/junkyard on Old Prater Road, citing visibility, safety and zoning conflicts and agreeing to refer code issues to the ordinance committee.
The Smyth County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to deny a special‑use permit for an automobile salvage/junkyard on Old Prater Road following extensive public comment and a planning commission tie.
Residents raised safety, environmental and property‑value concerns during citizens’ time. Rebecca Blevins (Speaker 11) told the board she and neighbors live on a narrow residential road with a single‑lane bridge and argued commercial heavy vehicles would strain the road and threaten local springs and the nearby fish hatchery. “We are opposing that industrial work coming into our neighborhood,” she said, citing bridge weight, maintenance and runoff risks. Supporters of the proposed recycling operation, including Gracie Billings (Speaker 19) and Jack Billings Jr. (Speaker 8), urged supervisors to permit a regulated salvage business and noted DEQ and DWR reviews.
Planning Commission members were split (3–3, 1 absent) and forwarded the tie to the board for final action. Supervisors discussed legal technicalities around nonconforming (grandfathered) uses and whether the applicant had allowed earlier vested rights to lapse; county staff explained state code and local ordinance constraints and noted a nonconforming use can be continued but loses that status if discontinued for 24 months. After debate — including citations of screening and visibility requirements in local code and concerns about setting a precedent for allowing industrial uses in residentially zoned areas — the board moved to deny as presented. The motion to deny carried unanimously. The board also agreed to add the matter to a forthcoming joint ordinance committee meeting for further review of zoning language and screening requirements.
The decision leaves the applicant with the option to seek a different site or to pursue code amendments through the ordinance process. The board chair said the committee referral would allow supervisors to examine whether current regulations adequately address topography, visibility and long‑term land‑use impacts.
Provenance: topic introduced SEG 1715; discussion and vote concluded SEG 3266–SEG 3289.
